Hate speech: definition and differences from freedom of speech, influence and the

consequences of hate speech

Hate speech
Hate speech is still present in BiH in various ways and the situation seems to be getting worse
over time.Unfortunately, one of the main problems is the unwillingness to consistently
implement the principle of the rule of law, that is to consistently apply laws and affirm human
rights standards, and to combat discrimination in every form and in every possible way.1
Namely, hate speech is extremely harmful for sensitive relations between communities in Bosnia
and Herzegovina because it has a significant potential to hinder the reconciliation process and
multiply existing conflicts. The history of war conflict, the division of society, the dominance of
collective identities, the legacy of patriarchy and rigid gender roles, the daily media propagation
of intolerance and even hatred, lead to the perception of ubiquity, but also general acceptance
and "normality" of hate speech in BiH society.2
Manifestation of hatred based on different grounds is evident in all segments of BiH society.
Various manifestations of hate and messages of hate are present on the Internet, in the culture as
well as in the media which is a space for messages of intolerance, discrimination and hatred.
These messages appear in both urban and rural areas, nationally homogeneous and
heterogeneous environments.3
It can be stated that hate speech is a continuous companion of all forms of contemporary politics
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that it deepens the existing ethnic and religious distances in
Bosnia and Herzegovina and blocks democracy and positive changes.4
Having in mind the role that hate speech played in creating the conditions for the outbreak of
conflict in the former Yugoslavia, one must not underestimate the seriousness of the threat that
aggressive nationalism and ethnocentric rhetoric represent to the security and peaceful
coexistence between people.
The international community has repeatedly warned of heightened tensions caused by extremely
nationalistic politics as is the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina5, for which it is indicated that there

1
Sali-Terzić, S. (2013) Govor mržnje: međunarodni standardi ljudskih prava i pravni okvir u Bosni i Hercegovini.
Dostupno na: https://bhnovinari.ba/
wp-content/uploads/2013/01/govor_mrznje_ljudskopravaski_aspekt_sevima_sali_terzic.pdf
2
Lučić-Ćatić, M. i Bajrić, A. (2013) Procesuiranje krivičnih djela počinjenih iz mržnje u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo:
Centar za društvena istraživanja Analitika.
3
7 Blagojević, B. (2010) Kulturno-geografski aspekt istraživanja govora mržnje na javnim površinama. U: Duško
Vejnović (ur.) Govor mržnje, Banja Luka: Defendologija, centar za bezbjednosna, sociološka i kriminološka
istraživanja. str. 377-387.
4
Županović, B. (2014) Govor mržnje i jezičke manipulacije u Bosni i Hercegovini, str. 114-123. U: Kako prevazići
govor mržnje: Zbornik radova, Banja Luka: Evropski defendologija centar za naučna, politička, ekonomska,
socijalna, bezbjednosna, sociološka i kriminološka istraživanja.
5
NATO (2010) EU concerned about mounting tensions in BiH, str. 107-128, u: De Sanctis, F. (2014) Značaj
procesuiranja govora mržnje u postkonfliktnim državama: lekcije iz Bosne i Hercegovine i lekcije za Bosnu i
Hercegovinu, u: Krivična djela počinjena iz mržnje: Izazovi reguliranja i procesuiranja u BiH. Sarajevo: Analitika –
is a real risk that the political climate in BiH turns into ethnically motivated violence caused by
hate speech.6
What is hate speech?
One of the most widespread definitions of hate speech used in Europe is that of the Council of
Europe's Committee of Ministers within the recommendation No.97(20)7. In that document of
the Council of Europe, the term "hate speech" is defined as all forms of expression that spread,
incite, encourage or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of
hatredbased on intolerance, including intolerance expressed in the form of aggressive
nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility towards minorities, migrants and
people of immigrant origin. There is a noticeably limited number of explicitly stated forms of
"hate", although it emphasizes that "hate speech" includes, in addition to the explicitly stated,
other forms of hatred based on intolerance.8
In addition to the above, there are other definitions of hate speech, but most of them identify two
elements in common which make up its distinctive features. They must be cumulatively fulfilled
in order for certain speech to be considered hate speech. These are the following elements:
- expressing certain hateful and offensive content/messages (i.e. content that expresses,
advocates or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, or which mocks, belittles,
humiliates, dehumanises or devalues)
- such hate speech must be directed against certain targeted social groups and their
members who can be identified by certain common objective features9
In addition to the mentioned two-element structure, some theoreticians and practitioners believe
in the definition of hate speech based on three fundamental elements:10
- public speech (this is about public speech, public expression of intolerance, something
that has a certain wider audience; about messages that spread and promote bigotry,

Centar za društvena istraživanja

6
Kivimäki, T., Kramer, M. i Pasch, P. (2012) The Dynamics of Conflict in the Multi-ethnic State of Bosnia and
Herzegovina: Country Conflict-Analysis Study, pg. 107-128. U: De Sanctis, F. (2014) Značaj procesuiranja govora
mržnje u postkonfliktnim državama: lekcije iz Bosne i Hercegovine i lekcije za Bosnu i
Hercegovinu. U: Krivična djela počinjena iz mržnje: Izazovi reguliranja i procesuiranja u BiH. Sarajevo: Analitika –
Centar za društvena istraživanja
7
Recommendation of the Council of Europe No. R (97)20, available
at:http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/other_committees/dhlgbt_docs/CM_Rec
%2897%2920_en.pdf
8
Filipović, Lj. (2019) Krivičnopravni aspekti govora mržnje na elektronskim medijima i na Internetu. Fondacija
Centar za javno pravo: Sveske za javno pravo, str. 3-16, dostupno na:
http://www.fcjp.ba/analize/Sveske_za_javno_pravo_broj-37.pdf
9
Alaburić, V. (2003) Ograničavanje ‘govora mržnje’ u demokratskom društvu
– teorijski, zakonodavni i praktični aspekti. I. dio, Hrvatska pravna revija, i Cvijanović, H. (2016) Govor kao verbalni i
simbolički prostor slobode i političkog: američki poučak i govor mržnje u EU i Hrvatskoj, u: Kulenović, E. (ur.),
(2016) Govor mržnje u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Fakultet političkih znanosti, str. 67.
10
Kulenović, E. (ur.) (2016) Govor mržnje u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Fakultet političkih znanosti.
 intolerance or hatred; and which lead or may lead to violence and discrimination against a
person or group based on their ascriptive characteristics)
- content of speech (content of hate speech, which can be explicit or implicit in nature, can
refer to offensive and humiliating message, slander and uttering deliberate lies, threats,
calls for discrimination, calls for violence, etc.)
- the social group that is targeted by it (it is important to know who is being protected by
hate speech, which groups enjoy public legal protection of the state, why exactly those
characteristics are taken into account, and not some others, etc.)
Impact/consequences of hate speech
The effects of hate speech are similar to the effects caused by criminal acts committed out of
hatred which has already been mentioned beforehand, so we will only list them here, pointing
out certain specifics.
Hate speech has multiple effects that can be categorized as follows:
• Impact on individual and group sharing protected characteristics
• Impact on society:11
- Normalization of hate speech (Non-reaction of participants in the chain of criminal
prosecution leads to perceived normalization of hate speech, and even its multiplication.)
- Loss of trust/climate of mistrust (A climate of mistrust is created and the democracy of
society itself is called into question.)
- Permanent disruption of social relations (Polarization of the community - "us against
them", and a cycle of attacks and retaliation with the possibility of escalation.)
- Escalation (unsanctioning hate speech can lead to discrimination, hate crimes and,
ultimately, totalitarian and genocidal policies)12.

Hate speech vs. freedom of expression

Taking into account the fact that the right to freedom of expression is one of the fundamental
human rights that forms the backbone of every democratic and pluralistic society13, it is not
surprising that the same is apostrophized in all international documents on human rights, starting
with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 (Art. 19), through the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966 (Art. 19, paragraph 2), to the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union from 2000 /2009. (Art. 11, paragraph 1).

11
Calvert. C. (1997) Hate Speech and Its Harms: A Communication Theory Perspective. Journal of Communication,
Volume 47, Issue 1, mart 1997, str. 4-19.
12
Kulenović, E. (ur.) (2016) Govor mržnje u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Fakultet političkih znanosti, str. 40
13
ECHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 5493/72, 7. 12. 1976, pg. 49.
It is guaranteed14 by 162 and Art. II, par. 3, paragraph h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, which reads: "All persons on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina enjoy human
rights and fundamental freedoms from paragraph 2 of this article, and they include: ... h)
Freedom of expression" as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
(ECHR)15.
In the light of the aforementioned provision, it is important to point out the practice of the ECHR
to which the right to freedom of expression applies to information and statements that are
received favorably or are considered harmless or unimportant, but also to those that "offend,
shock or disturb".16 It is the latter that tests pluralism, tolerance and open-mindedness, features
that "without which there is no democratic society".17
However, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 2, that right is not absolute,
but rather the exercise of freedom of expression is related to duties and responsibilities, and is
subject to legally prescribed and necessary restrictions from a number of legitimate goals.18
Thus, paragraph 2 stipulates that the exercise of freedoms from paragraph 1 entails duties and
responsibilities, it may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties prescribed
by law and necessary in a democratic society.
in the interest of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, protection health or morals, protection of reputation or rights of others,
prevention of disclosure of information received in confidence, or for preserving the authority
and impartiality of the judiciary. So, it is evident that freedom of speech still has certain
limitations and its application, although imminently in democratic and pluralistic societies,
cannot be misused.

Hate speech: International legal documents, Institutional mechanisms, European

Court of Human Rights

14
Within its own constitutional and legal system, BiH has fourteen constitutions at different levels of territorial
organization, namely: the Constitution of BiH, two constitutions at the level entities, the Statute of the BDBiH and
ten constitutions at the cantonal level within the FBiH. All fourteen constitutions guarantee the protection of
human rights and, accordingly, freedom of expression.
15
Ademović, N., Marko, J., Marković, G. (2012) Ustavno pravo BiH. Sarajevo: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung; Trnka, K.
(2006) Ustavno pravo, 2. izd., Sarajevo: Univerzitetska knjiga
16
ECHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 5493/72, 7. 12. 1976, pg. 49
17
ECHR, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens i July v. France, 21279/02 i 36448/02, 22. 10. 2007, [GC], pg. 45
18
On the interpretation of the terms "duty and responsibility" by the ECtHR, see more in: Hadjianastassiou v.
Greece, 16 December 1992, paragraph 46; Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria,
19 December 1994, paragraph 38; Rommelfanger v. Federal Republic of Germany, 6 September 1989 (decision);
Vogt v. Germany, 26/09/1995, paragraph 53 and Engel and others v. the Netherlands, 08/06/1976, paragraph 101.
The international legal framework that regulates hate speech consists of a large number of
conventions, declarations, charters, protocols and other documents that in different ways regulate
hate speech on a global level and prescribe the obligations of states that ratify them.
Council of Europe
- European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
including protocol no. 12 (2000)
It is most appropriate to start the discussion on the international legal framework that regulates
hate speech in the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina by highlighting Article 10 of the ECHR.
For a more complete understanding of international law, in addition to the provisions of Article
10 of the ECHR, it is important to highlight Protocol no. 12 with the ECHR from 2000, which
regulates the enjoyment of all rights determined by law without discrimination based on any
basis such as gender, race, skin color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, belonging to a national minority, property, birth or some other status.
- Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
The revised version of this charter19 prohibits any discrimination based on race, skin color,
religion or national origin when exercising the rights recognized by the Charter.
- Convention on Cybercrime (November 23, 2001) and Additional Protocol to the Convention on
Cybercrime concerning incriminating acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed using
computer systems (2003)20
As already explained in the part of the international legal framework for regulating hate crimes,
the Additional Protocol requires that legislative and other necessary measures be adopted at the
national level in order to determine the acts of committing that were defined as criminal acts
carried out using a computer system.
In the protocol itself, "racial and xenophobic material" is defined as any written material, any
image or any kind other representation of ideas or theories that advocate, promote or incite
hatred, discrimination or violence against either an individual or a group of individuals, and is
based on race, color, origin or national or ethnic origin, and religion, if it is used as reason for
any of the aforementioned acts (Art. 2.1).
- Recommendation CM/Rec 97/20 on hate speech, Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe (December 30, 1997)
With this recommendation, when defining hate speech, it is emphasized that different forms of
expression cause greater and more harmful consequences when they are manifested through the
media and it states that domestic laws and practice should make a clear distinction between the
19
The aforementioned charter was ratified by Bosnia and Herzegovina on February 24, 2015
20
The Convention on Cybercrime dated 23 November 2001 and the Additional Protocol to that Convention on the
Criminalization of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature dated 28 January 2001. 2003, entered into force in
relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina on September 1, 2006, Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina -
International Agreements 6/06.
responsibility of the author of the "hate speech" and the responsibility of the media for
publication.
- Declaration on freedom of political debate in the media of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe (February 12, 2004)
- Recommendation CM/Rec (2011) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to
member states on protection and promotion of the universal nature, integrity and openness of the
Internet
- Recommendation CM/Rec (2018)7 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to
member states on Guidelines for respect, protection and exercise of children's rights in the digital
environment (July 4, 2018)
- Recommendation CM/Rec (2019)1 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to
member states on the prevention and suppression of sexism (March 27, 2019)
European Union
- EU Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA. on suppressing certain forms and ways of
expression21
This decision obliges member states to ensure punishment for:
• public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such
a group determined on the basis of race, color, religion, origin or national or ethnic origin
• committing the aforementioned offense by spreading or distributing leaflets, pictures or other
materials in public
• public forgiveness, denial or gross reduction of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes from Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of the Permanent International Criminal
Court, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group determined on the basis
of race, color, religion, origin or national or ethnic origin, in the event that the offense was
committed in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of
such a group
• public acceptance, denial or gross undermining of crimes under Article 6 of the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal annexed to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945, directed
against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, color, creed,
descent, or national or ethnic origin, as the case may be when the offense was committed in a
manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.
The Framework Decision obliges member states to ensure that the abetting and aiding of the
aforementioned acts is punishable.

21
Framework Decision of the Council 2008/913/PUP of 28 November 2008 on the suppression of certain forms and
ways of expressing racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, Sl. l. EU L 328/55.
- Recommendation for combating discrimination and hate speech in pre-election campaigns
across Europe
- European Network of Equality Bodies (EQUINET) (March 20, 2019)
United Nations
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)22
This act determined that the guaranteed freedom of expression can be subject to certain
restrictions, but that they must be determined by law and be necessary for:
• respect for the rights of others or the reputation of other persons
• for the protection of state security or public order or public health or morals.
The Pact also stipulates that any invocation of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
as incitement towards discrimination, hostility or violence should be prohibited by law.
- International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)23
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)-
Resolution of the UN Human Rights Council on the promotion, protection and realization of
human rights on the Internet

Hate speech in BiH legislation: legal and institutional framework

National legal framework
The national legal framework foresees various preventive and repressive regulations for
protection against hate speech which can basically be categorized into three groups:
• Criminal law regulation
• Other laws regulating hate speech
• Documents regulating hate speech in the media

Criminal law regulation

The criminal laws of BiH do not criminalize the basic form of hate speech, but only the
aggravated form is considered as a criminal offense of inciting hatred. These provisions
essentially do not represent the basic form of hate speech, but rather an aggravated form, the so-

22
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, Sl. l. SFRY 7/71. BiH is a member of this
Pact on the basis of succession, Sl. l. RBiH 25/93
23
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of March 7, 1966, Sl. l. SFRY
31/67. BiH is a member of this convention on the basis of succession,Sl. l. RBiH 25/93.
called incitement/agitation to hatred.17924 Thus, in all four criminal laws in BiH, the provision
on inciting hatred in the form of inciting national, religious hatred, discord and intolerance was
prescribed in similar way in all criminal laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina until 2017, when this
offense was deleted by amendments to the Criminal Code of RS, and introduced the criminal
offense of Public incitement and incitement of violence and hatred.
Regarding the provision of inciting national, religious hatred, discord and intolerance, the current
criminal laws of BiH, FBiH and The BDBiH prescribes this criminal offense in a similar way
under the name of inciting national, religious hatred, discord and intolerance. This provision is
prescribed in the CCBiH (Art. 145a) in Chapter XV – Criminal acts against the freedom and
rights of man and citizen; in CC FBiH (Art. 163) in chapter XV – Criminal offenses against the
constitutional order of FBiH; and in the CCBDBiH (Art. 160) also in Chapter XV –Crimes
against the state.
Article 145a) paragraph 1 of the CCBiH prescribes25: (1) Whoever publicly provokes or incites
national, racial or religious hatred, discord or intolerance among the constituent peoples and
others, as well as others who live or stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina, shall be punished by
imprisonment for a term from three months to three years.
Until 2021, the aforementioned article provided for only one qualified form of offense in the
form of abuse of position or authority. With the entry into force of the Decision of the High
Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Law on amendments to the Criminal Code of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 26/21 of 23 July 2021, which amended Article 145a in such a way
that in addition to criminalizing public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group
of persons or a member of a group determined based on race, skin color, religion, origin or
national or ethnic affiliation, if it is not included in the basic form of the crime (paragraph 2), the
more serious forms of this criminal offense are also introduced.
The more severe forms are:
• Public approval, denial, gross downplaying or attempt to justify the crime of genocide, crimes
against humanity or war crimes that have been established by a final judgment in accordance
with the Charter of the International Military jointly with the London Agreement of August 8,
1945 or the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia or the International Criminal
Court or the court in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is directed against a group, a person, or a
member of a group determined with regards to race, color, religion, origin or national or ethnic
affiliation, in a manner that could incite violence or hatred directed against such a group of
persons or a member of such a group (paragraph 3)

24
Smith, A. (2013) s, str. 81-103. U: E. Hodžić i A. Mehmedić: s. Sarajevo. Centar za društvena istraživanja Analitika;
i De Sanctis, F. (2013)s, str. 107-128. U: E. Hodžić i A. Mehmedić: s. Sarajevo. Centar za društvena istraživanja
Analitika.
25
Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, s s s, no. 3/03, 32/03, 37/03, 54/04, 61/04, 30/05, 53/06, 55/06,
32/07, 8/10, 47/14, 22/15, 40/ 15 and 35/18
• Committing the criminal act of inciting national, racial and religious hatred, discord and
intolerance in such a way that makes available or distributes leaflets, pictures or other materials
to the public (paragraph 4)
• Committing this criminal act in a way that can disrupt public order and peace or if it is
threatening, abusive or offensive (paragraph 5)
• Granting recognition, awards, memorials, any reminders or any privileges or the like to a
person who has been convicted by a final judgment for genocide, crime against humanity or war
crime, or naming public facilities such as streets, squares, parks, bridges, institutions,
institutions, municipalities or cities, settlements and populated places, or the like, or registering a
name by or after a person convicted by a final judgment for genocide, crime against humanity or
war crime, or glorification, in any way, of persons convicted by a final verdict for genocide,
crime against humanity or war crime (paragraph 6)
• Committing this criminal offense by an official or responsible person or employee in a
government institution or any body that is financed through the public budget (para. 7), which
changed the previously prescribed paragraph 2 of the said article
In the FBiH, the basic form of the criminal offense is Inciting national, racial and religious
hatred, discord or intolerance from Article 163.26 is committed by anyone who publicly provokes
or incites national, racial or religious hatred, discord or intolerance among constituent peoples
and others living in the Federation, for which a prison sentence of three months to three years is
prescribed (paragraph 1).
The following are provided as qualified forms:
• If this criminal offense was committed by coercion, abuse, jeopardy of security, exposure to
humiliation national, ethnic or religious symbols, damage to other people's symbols, desecration
of monuments, memorials or graves, for which a prison sentence of one to eight years is
prescribed (para. 2)
• If this criminal offense was committed by abuse of position or authority for which a prison
sentence of one to ten years is prescribed (para. 3)
• If the criminal offense referred to in para. 2. was committed by abuse of position or authority,
or if it occurred because of the act of disorder, violence or other severe consequences for the
common life of the constituent peoples and others living in the Federation, for which a prison
sentence of one to ten years is prescribed (para. 4)
• When this criminal offense is committed by publicly denying or justifying genocide, crimes
against humanity or committed war crimes determined by the final decision of the International
Court of Justice, International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia or the domestic court,
for which a prison sentence of three months to three years is prescribed.

26
Criminal Code of FBiH, s s s, no. 36/2003, 21/2004 – corrected, 69/2004, 18/2005, 42/2010, 42/2011, 59/2014,
76/2014, 46/2016 and 75/2017.
In the BDBiH, the criminal offense of Inciting national, racial and religious hatred, discord or
intolerance from Article 160 of the CCBD BiH27 is committed by anyone who incites or incites
national, racial or religious hatred, discord or intolerance among constituent peoples and others
living in Brčko District, for which a prison sentence of one to five years is prescribed (paragraph
1).
The 2017 amendment to the Criminal Code of Republika Srpska deleted the provision on
incitement to hatred in its previously existing form, and introduced provisions found in Chapter
XXVIII of the Criminal Code for the group of criminal offenses against public order and peace,
which has significantly shifted the protected object. At the same time, the list of protected
characteristics was expanded to include gender, sexual orientation and disability, which enabled
its wider application.
Although the legal description of the basic form of this act does not contain the requirement that
it must be a matter of public provocation or incitement to violence and hatred that will likely
disrupt public order and peace, it is certainly important to note that when interpreting
iapplication of this provision, it is necessary to take into account the protected object of this
criminal act, i.e. about the convenience of the action taken disrupt public order and peace.28
Thus, the act referred to in Article 359 of the KZRS29 is committed by anyone through the press,
radio, television, computer system or social network, at a public gathering or public place or in
another way publicly invites, provokes or encourages or makes available to the public leaflets,
images or some other material that calls for violence or hatred directed at a particular person or
groups because of them national, racial, religious or ethnic affiliation, skin color, gender, sexual
orientation, disability, gender identity, origin or any other characteristics, for which he will be
punished by a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years (paragraph 1). Qualified forms of this
criminal offense will exist:
• If this act was committed by coercion, abuse, jeopardy of security, exposure to national
humiliation, ethnic or religious symbols, by damaging other people's belongings, by desecrating
monuments, memorials or graves, with with the prescribed prison sentence of one to five years
(paragraph 2)
• If as a result of the act from para. 1. and 2. riots, violence or other serious consequences for the
common life of the people occurred and others who live in Republika Srpska, will be punished
with a prison sentence of two to twelve years (para. 3)
Like the KZBDBiH, the KZRS stipulates in paragraph 4 of the same article that the materials and
objects that carry the messages from paragraph 1, as well as the means for their production,
reproduction or distribution, be confiscated.
Other laws regulating hate speech

27
Criminal Code of the BDBiH, gazette s s s, no. 19/2020
28
Filipović, LJ. (2019) s Sarajevo: Misija OSCE-a u Bosni i Hercegovini, str. 83. i 84
29
KZRS, s s s, no. 64/2017, 104/2018 - US decision, 15/2021 and 89/2021.
In addition to criminal law regulation, hate speech is, as already pointed out, is also prohibited by
other laws as follows:
• The Law on Prohibition of Discrimination of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Articles 2, 3 and 4)30
• Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Art. 7.3)31
• The Law on Gender Equality in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Art. 3)32
• The Law on Freedom of Religion and the Legal Status of Churches and Religious Communities
in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Art. 5)33
Documents regulating hate speech in the media
In addition to the above, it is certainly important to highlight the documents that regulate hate
speech in the media:
• Code on audiovisual media services and radio media services adopted by the Communications
Regulatory Agency for the field of electronic media34 and
• Press Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted by the Press Council in Bosnia and
Herzegovina35
Conclusion
Based on everything discussed in this work it is obvious that the BiH regulations on hate crimes
are disharmonized and not organized efficiently. In order to improve upon them the existing
legal norms concerning this area would need to undergo a reform.
With disharmony as the source of the norms of substantive criminal law it can only lead to
problems concerning real life events and lead to situations in which identical illegal behaviors in
some Bosnian and Herzegovina jurisdictions are qualified as criminal acts of hatred or
incitement to hatred, while in others such a qualification will be absent entirely. Therefore
criminal acts need to be harmonized across the state, which would lead to greater trust of the
citizens to the rule of law and its institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Everything stated in relation to the need for harmonization relates to both the area of substantive
criminal law and also to procedural criminal law mechanisms in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

30
Law on Prohibition of Discrimination of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no.
59/09, 66/16.
31
Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 23/01, 7/02, 9/02,
20/02, 25/02 4/04, 20/04, 25/05, 52/05, 65/05, 77/05, 11/06, 24/06 , 32/07,
33/08, 37/08, 32/10, 18/13, 7/14 and 31/16
32
Law on Gender Equality in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Gazette of BiH, no. 16/03, 102/09, 32/10
33
Law on Freedom of Religion and Legal Status of Churches and Religious Communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 5/04.
34
Code on audio-visual media services and radio media services, Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no.
31/03, 75/06, 32/10 and 98/12, 78/13
35
Press Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In order to create an effective response to these criminal acts, it is necessary to introduce a
special register or records of criminal acts committed out of hatred, i.e. inciting hatred, which
would include all criminal acts of this types for the observed period, with special indications
about what type of motive they are about, what type of criminal offense (whether the qualified
form or motive is an aggravating circumstance, then whether it is the object injuries or threats to
persons or property); and the type of victim (whether the offense was committed against an
individual or a group etc.
One of the imperatives is to educate the prosecutors and authorized officials as subjects who
undertake investigative actions that the specific nature of these criminal acts and the manner of
their legal regulation without during the investigation may result in failures to detect hate/
prejudice as an essential feature of the criminal offense that is the subject of the investigation
(investigative evidence focuses only on basic criminal offense), which will ultimately lead to the
impossibility of charging for this type of criminal offense.
In the end it is also important for the state to protect its own minority groups and establish the
communication between competent authorities with the community and minority groups in order
to eliminate fear and uncertainty and at the same time develop trust in judicial bodies and the
rule of law system that should provide them with adequate protection.
Concerning hate speech, in order to really effectively oppose it and, at the same time, to fully
preserve freedom of expression as a fundamental asset of a democratic society, it is necessary to
properly recognize hate speech in all its forms and undertake relevant, legally prescribed
activities and ways of reacting.
From all the above it is evident that in BiH, despite all its shortcomings, there is a sufficient
legislative and institutional framework for the fight against hate speech, but the sanctioning of
hate speech that does occurrence is still at a very low level, and therefore actions in this area
need to be improved.
Existing legal solutions regarding aggravated forms of hate speech are not unificated and are
sometimes lacking in certain areas of BiH, so the imperative should be on the introduction of an
extended list of protected characteristics and thus more comprehensive protection of the people.
In the end some of the same problems that appeared concerning hate crimes have been visible in
cases of hate speech as well and should be solved in a similar manner which is the case
concerning the need for educating the competent authorities on these matters, creating a
comprehensive databases of registered incidents, misdemeanors and criminal acts,
communicating with different communities as well as the overall establishing of trust between
the state and the people.